Talking to non GC people

[Sausagenbacon]

I've been chatting to a few people recently about gender issues, and their opinion runs roughly like this ' we should all listen to each other, and not be so unpleasant. But of course, men shouldn't be in women's sports'
Which begs the question that, if GC people hadn't been 'unpleasant' men would have been firmly in women's sports.
So, should I be pleased that public opinion has shifted slightly, or should I be banging my head against the wall?

Where we differed primarily was that she thinks some children are true trans and need to be given an opportunity to understand themselves through this lens.

I was what could be called a "true trans child". That's even the reason why I ended up transitioning as an adult: because I could remember "feeling that way" for more than 30 years, so there was no reason to assume it was ever going to change. And yet, I think that children should not be exclusively affirmed in their belief, and certainly not treated medically. They should be made to understand that they will have to wait until they are adults before taking any lasting decision. And they should definitely be made to explore how they feel, what it means for them to "feel like a boy/girl", what exactly bothers them about acting more in line with their sex stereotypes, and so on.

And then, ideally, researchers would be allowed to observe those children, to record their answers and insights, to measure their environment and comorbidities, stuff like that, so we get a better understanding of what's going on with those children. But we all know that in the current atmosphere, any "research" allowed is in fact affirming interventions, and I don't see that as good at all for the kids.

I hope it's not too trite to say but I really enjoy your contributions on this board. We get told we're in a echo chamber by a lot of ploppers, but we're clearly not. If a transman and a non-believer like me can have interesting discussions without tearing strips off each other, it's a pretty good indication that it's not!

From my personal experience, if I had to declare one environment to be an echo chamber, it would be the trans community, certainly not this board.

None of the few that I clicked on went to a pdf. I realised quickly that some of the articles were about topics unrelated to genderbollocks, and that that poster was likely just here to annoy, so I didn't bother clicking on any more.

Agreed, entirely.

The way I understand it, GC feminism has room for everyone, however they present, however much they align with the stereotypes of their sex, and without any need for labels. That's IMO a lot more inclusive than an ideology that traps kids into pre-formatted labels starting in childhood or teenage years, and then argues that they need medical interventions to help them live happily within those labels!

The societal expectation that one should conform to gender expectations is the problem.

I know I refrain from doing some things I like because they are not "manly", and I don't feel like explaining to confused people that even trans people don't have to conform to gender expectations.

And yes, my problem is my body dysmorphia, but because of the chokehold GI has on medical research, nobody can even examine me to try to figure out if there's something different with my brain, or if I suffer from the unhealed effects of some specific trauma, or whatever. It's frustrating.

It ain’t their first rodeo.

I went through Finch's links on the other thread that do not engage with the fundamental premise of what the group of people disparagingly categorised as believing 'GC ideology' are campaigning for.

What a fail.

So can you explain why the post containing all those links seems to have been removed?

I would suggest it is because of misinformation. Dodgy links???

Bugger. I've a lunch break coming up. I was looking forward to an interesting read.

But it made a lot of good points very succinctly. Thank you.

i think we can learn something from the natural world too. We live on a planet where evolution has taken place over millions of years, evolution in plant life, in the wide varieties of animal life from mammals, fish, insects, amphibians, birds , reptiles, invertebrates. And in all these amazing diverse extraordinary life forms the process has resulted in a world where there is a clear binary pattern, for a species to continue it requires that fixed binary dynamic. It is how our world is organised.

Science you say....

What science was that Finch? Which of those links you posted was about 'physical' science and which of them, of any that actually worked or led somewhere, was only about discussing the psychological impact on those who have declared that they have specific identities that are not reflective of the material reality of their bodies?

Perhaps next time, you will take the time to actually be the person that engages rather than telling people that you have the 'science' that trumps their opinion when that is very clearly untrue.

I think that people on here are going to have to assume that posts with masses of links are going to include some sort of data harvesting links and just not click on any in future.

The links all were leading reputable sources though. I did check that.

I'm glad that you checked carefully.

Unfortunately, we do need to be wary, as some people do not post in good faith.

I don’t talk about it much. I know that in the circles I move in, I’m an outlier.

I would say that a large number of those I know are what I would call ‘practical TWAW’ - they don’t want to discuss the detail of what they think, but they are fully on board with compliance to social and medical transition. Most parents of transitioned young adults that I know are in this category. If the SC ruling or JKR comes up - and they don’t want it to - they might be willing to talk about the practical and emotional distress to their children if having to use the facilities for their sex. They probably support gender neutral facilities as an alternative. Some will be working in education, in particular, and will say things like ‘once you get used to it [non sex pronouns] it’s fine’. Tbh I think this is where really big numbers sit, more than we think.

I do know some ‘absolute TWAW’ people for whom a transitioned person has always been that sex. Not many. Frankly I don’t want to talk to them. Neither of us is going to change our minds.

’Practical GCs’ fits vast number of people, including of course Relationship Purposes Robin (remember that?? What a long time ago that seems). All the ‘TWAW and isn’t there some sort of brain study proving it but probably not sport’ lot. That think they are TWAW because actually thinking through the GC things they believe would cause too much trouble.

I’m an ‘absolute GC’ and I only really talk
about it to others who have signalled that they are too. I know one who doesn’t go as far as me in terms of what I think about the gender movement, but she has fought harder in a more difficult area (political party). And some people wouldn’t put me in that category because I use preferred pronouns. I feel I must know more trans people than those who don’t, because I defy anyone to face a visibly vulnerable autistic young woman who is only just out of a very difficult adolescence and in the throes of medically supported self harm, along with their permanently terrified parents, and deliberately use words that they are obsessively focusing on being a direct attack? I can’t do it (except accidentally, which I occasionally have done). Or even a middle aged man in a wig who says ‘I know I don’t pass’ but who is clearly hoping desperately you will contradict him. What is there to say to either of them, except to talk about something like gardening or music or work or ANYTHING rather than the mess that gender nonsense has made of their lives.

So, should men be on lesbian dating apps? In female prisons? In female rape crisis centres.

It seems to me that if one accepts that there is one single place where men are not women (and sports is an obvious one) then -

(1) Men are not women.
therefore
(2) TWAM and that does not change ever, at all, wherever they are.

I cannot see how anyone can (effectively) say "I am aware that men are not women for the purposes of sport, but men can be same sex attracted women and lesbians need to be open to having sex with penis-people" or "I am aware that men are not women for the purposes of sport, but why on earth does a female rape victim need a support group that is female only?" It is a truly incoherent position that relies on two things being true at once (men are never women and men are sometimes women).

The disconnect between the two positions is interesting OP.

What people haven't wrapped their heads around is what to do if the demands being made (by the poor, oppressed Transpeople) are unreasonable. They've just nodded along.

Then when confronted with the actual implications in the real world, they can't condone these. But they aren't engaging with their own lack of due diligence across the process. So they're stuck with a contradictory position.

I think you have to take it from the end point. Agree effusively that men shouldn't be in women's sports. And help them work backwards.

Thanks @PermanentTemporaryi can relate to a lot of what you say. I know a fair few young people being genuinely harmed by this and feel like it’s watching a car crash in slow motion. There is only so much you can say to parents. My compromise is to use “they” or the name. I will not deliberately hurt a young person by calling them pronouns that upset them. They are victims also of the belief that there is such a thing as gender identity

The best entry point are discussions about sport and the impact of non-evidence medicine on children - likely to be the biggest medical scandal after thalidomide. After that, prisons and Rape/DV shelters. Or the FWS case about women on public boards. It takes time for people to move along the path to consciousness and with the BBC/Guardian running interference on truth our job is very difficult.

Pointing out how the BBC has removed women’s words from women but are happy to call trans identified male criminals women - people can easily check that for themselves and hopefully get more curious.

But it would still create or allow mixed sex spaces which only benefit men who wish to get changed with or urinate next to women, and would risk harm to those women who, due to naivity or virtue signalling, were to use them

Agree. Once people have realised the implications of accepting some men as women in some areas of life, and decided its not something they agree with, the spell is broken. Because they have realised they dont believe TWAW after all. And if they don't believe that, what is the justification for treating them as such in any situation where biological sex matters?

Serious question - what is a trans person and why do they need protection from discrimination?

Surely everyone is protected from abuse, harassment, violence etc, and there is no need for any particular laws to protect anyone (trans or otherwise) further?

Isn’t that the argument the Conservatives are using to withdraw from the ECHR?

Yep. Some of those stereotypes are (close to) completely arbitrary, for example "man has short hair, woman has long hair", others are less arbitrary ("man wears trousers, woman wears dress), and others are not arbitrary at all ("mother is best placed to give up work to look after a new born baby, father less so"). There are also stereoptypes which are just gross misogyny ("women are nothing more than bodies with holes to f*")

But they are all stereotypes.

Ironically (or should that be inevitably) men claiming a trans'woman' gender identity seem to gravitate towards the grossly misogynistic stereotypes, and the arbitrary ones. They never seem to adopt the "be kind, avoid physical confrontation at all costs" or "keep the house clean" or the "dedictate everything you have to your children" stereotypes that women seem to often [be forced to?] fall into.

To me, it just means not treating a man less favourably because he's wearing a dress and calling himself Samantha, than another man in a suit calling himself Sam.
It means recognising that 'Samantha' may have a harder time of it than 'Sam' because he may be othered and subject to abuse because he is behaving against societal expectations for his sex, and that this could be an additional disadvantage on top of any he may face due to his race, disability, sexuality etc.
I think this is a reasonable position, because there are many in society that strongly disapprove of men who reject masculinity, and being a TIM is about the strongest possible rejection, so I think its fair to say it has the potential to result in less favourable treatment than other men would recieve.

Usual forms of discrimination and harassment are:

• verbal abuse
• bullying
• physical abuse
• refusal of service - eg housing, job interviews, gym membership, hotel rooms
• being refused promotions or unfairly disciplined at work

If any of these happens because you are or are perceived to be trans, you are protected and can be compensated under the Equality Act 2010. The difficulty is in deciding whether refusing to let a transwoman use the woman's facilities is EA Discrimination. *Spoiler alert - No, according to the FWS judgement 2025)